BOSTON  COIiLBQS  UBRAUl^ 
C^BSnTTT  HILL,  MA8B. 


SOCIALISM 

l".V 

CHARLES  S.  DEVAS,  M.A. 


407  Bergen  Street 
Brooklyn,  New  York 


Price,  5  cents  each 


SOCIALISM 


By  CHARLES  S.  DEVAS,  MA.i 


Like  all  others  who  speak  of  Socialism  and  wish  to  be 
clear,  I  must  say  at  once  whom  I  mean  by  Socialists — not 
the  Anarchists  who  oppose  all  government,  not  the 
Communists  who  would  have  all  things  held  in  common, 
not  the  Extremists  or  Dynamiters  who  w^ould  use  violence 
to  attain  their  ends,  not  any  of  these  w^hom  there  is  no 
necessity  to  confute,  but  the  scientific  or  moderate 
Socialists  who  would  proceed  by  way  of  the  ballot-box, 
with  law  and  order;  and  would  contrive  that  sooner  or 
later  all  capital  or  means  of  production  or  sources  of  in- 
come should  be  transferred  to  the  hand  of  the  State, 
whether  the  central  or  the  local  Government. 

SOCIALISM  AND  THE  CHURCH. 

Now,  the  first  question  that  may  occur  to  you  is  whether, 
after  all,  this  moderate  Socialism  is  an  enemy,  wdiether 
there  is  any  need  of  fighting,  whether  at  any  rate  in  Great 
Britain  we  have  any  complaint  against  the  Socialists.  Are 


^  A  paper  read  at  the  Catholic  Conference  at  Blackburn, 
Sept.  27,  1905. 


2 


Socialism 


they  less  civil  to  us  than  is  any  other  non-Catholic  body? 
Why  pick  a  quarrel? 

But  Great  Britain  is  not  the  whole  world,  and  looking 
outside,  wherever  the  Catholic  Church  is  a  strong  force 
and  simultaneously  the  Socialists  are  a  strong  force,  we  see 
the  two  in  violent  antagonism.  You  have  only  to  cross  to 
Belgium  to  see  them  forming  two  political  parties  in  daily 
hostility.  At  least  half  the  blame  of  the  cruel  persecution 
of  the  Church  in  France  falls  on  the  shoulders  of  the 
Socialists.  In  Germany  a  strong  Government  left  off 
persecuting  the  Church  because  in  her  they  recognized  the 
only  force  that  could  withstand  Socialism  successfully.  In 
Italy  a  Government  once  bitterly  anti-clerical  is  becoming 
eager  for  an  alliance  with  the  Church  as  a  shield  against 
the  Socialists.  The  same  antagonism  is  seen  across  the 
Atlantic.  The  two  rapidly  growing  and  spreading  bodies 
in  the  United  States  are  the  Socialists,  who  already  make 
up  nearly  half  the  voters,  and  over  against  them  the 
Catholic  Church.  Within  the  last  fourteen  months  two 
books  have  been  published  in  the  United  States  on  the 
Catholic  side,  showing  the  true  facts  of  the  momentous 
case;  the  earliest  by  Father  Gettelmann,  S.J.,  being  an 
enlarged  and  adapted  translation  of  Father  Cathrein's 
work  on  Socialism  in  its  eighth  edition ;  the  later  book  is  by 
the  Right  Rev.  William  Stang,  Bishop  of  Fall  River,  en- 
titled Socialism  and  Christianity;  and  in  neither  book  is 
there  any  question  of  conciliation.  "Little  can  be  done/' 
writes  a  Socialist  American  magazine,  "until  men  and 
women  face  the  two  curses  of  our  country  and  cur  time, 
the  curses  of  capitalism  and  Christianity.''  "The  real 
Socialists,''  writes  Bishop  Stang,  "have  done  with  God 


Socialism 


3 


and  His  eternal  laws.  .  .  Real  Socialism  means  rebell- 
ion against  God  and  Society/'  And  the  Bishop  writes  from 
the  long  personal  experience  of  his  pastoral  work.  ''Is 
there  nothing  in  your  way?''  he  asked  a  Socialist  leader 
not  long  ago.  ''Yes,  sir,"  the  man  answered  slowly, 
"there  is  one  thing  in  our  way,  and  that  one  obstacle  is 
the  Catholic  Church." 

THREE  MAIN  PILLARS  OF  SOCIALISM. 

And  yet  it  seems  a  pity  to  be  compelled  to  take  up  arms 
against  a  scheme  and  a  school  that  gives  us  so  fair  a 
promise.  Indeed,  what  could  appear  on  the  surface  more 
reasonable  than  orderly  Collectivism?  Three  principal 
arguments  strike  me  as  the  pillars  and  props  of  the  So- 
cialist position.  The  first  is  the  argument  that  it  is  just 
and  fair  for  all  men  to  start  alike;  and  that  if  a  man  is  to 
be  poor  and  fill  a  low  station,  it  is  to  be  his  own  fault  and 
own  doing,  and  not  due  to  the  mere  accident  that  he  was 
born  of  poor  parents,  while  another  is  in  high  station  from 
no  personal  merit,  but  from  the  mere  accident  that  he  was 
born  of  rich  parents.  This  may  be  called  the  argument 
from  justice. 

The  second  argument  is  from  the  immense  saving  to  be 
worked  by  Collectivism  with  its  joint  and  orderly  system 
of  production,  and  the  avoidance  of  the  incalculable  waste 
of  the  competitive  system,  such  as  the  vast  sums  spent  on 
advertising  or  on  the  work  of  commercial  travelers,  a  large 
body  of  the  most  intelligent  men  in  the  country  using  up 
their  brains  and  their  time  chiefly  to  induce  purchasers  to 
buy  from  one  commercial  house  rather  than  from  another. 
Then  there  is  the  waste  of  things  made  that  no  one  wants, 


4 


Socialism 


the  waste  of  the  spoilt  or  unsold  goods,  the  waste  of  a 
dozen  men  doing  what  a  couple  could  do  if  they  only 
acted,  in  delivering  goods,  for  example,  in  combination 
instead  of  competition,  as  letter  delivery  compared  with 
milk  delivery.  Now  all  this  waste  is  ended  by  Collectiv- 
ism, which  forms  the  logical  conclusion  to  the  great  pro- 
cess you  see  around  of  producers,  production  and  sale, 
even  retail  shops  on  the  largest  possible  scale.  What  a 
vast  fund  will  be  in  hand  from  all  labor  being  usefully  em- 
ployed instead  of  some  25  per  cent,  being  simply  thrown 
away!    This  may  be  called  the  argument  from  economy. 

The  third  argument  is  drawn  from  the  evils  that  in 
most  industrial  countries  are  the  lot  of  so  many:  ill-fed, 
ill-clad,  ill-housed,  over-worked,  under-paid,  unemployed, 
exposed  from  youth  upwards  to  evil  surroundings,  moral 
and  physical.  A  way  out  of  these  evils  must  be  found. 
'*We  have  found  the  way  and  the  only  w^ay,"  is  the  glad 
tidings  or  gospel  of  Socialism.  *Tresent  c6nditions  are 
intolerable  :  your  deliverance  a  necessity  :  Collectivism  the 
one  answer  to  your  most  urgent  need.'' 

This  argument  may  be  called  the  argument  from  neces- 
sity; and  backed  up  by  its  comrades,  the  arguments  from 
justice  and  from  economy,  the  three  appear  to  offer  a 
formidable  front  to  all  opponents ;  for  like  ethical  consid- 
erations, monetary  considerations  and  humane  consider- 
ations appear  to  drive  us  to  the  Socialistic  conclusion. 
But  then  appearance  is  not  always  the  same  as  reality. 

COLLECTIVISM  AND  EQUALITY. 

Take  the  first  argument :  w^hy  should  men  start  all  on  an 
equality?    Tell  a  Brahmin  he  should  start  equal  with  a 


Socialism 


5 


Pariah  and  he  will  laugh  in  your  face.  Ah !  but  the 
Hindus  are  sadly  behind  the  age.  Perhaps ;  but  then  ask 
the  modern  Germans,  who  are  certainly  in  the  front,  and 
many  of  their  philosophers  will  tell  you  that  the  business 
or  function  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people — German, 
British,  or  any  other — is  to  minister  to  the  welfare,  phys- 
ical and  intellectual,  of  an  elite,  of  a  small  number  of 
superior  beings.  Or  ask  our  own  men  of  science,  and  they 
will  declare  that  mere  nature  knows  nothing  of  this  equal- 
ity, that  everywhere  is  inequality,  struggle,  survival  of  the 
individual  best  adapted  for  the  cosmic  process.  And  quite 
apart  from  any  question  of  wealth,  any  one  can  see  the 
utter  inequality  of  individuals  at  the  very  start,  inequali- 
ties of  health  and  physical  capacities,  of  moral  and  intel- 
lectual qualities,  of  their  temper,  their  w^its  and  their 
memory ;  so  that  merely  to  equalize  money  fortunes  would 
be  a  very  imperfect  attempt  at  giving  all  men  an  equal 
start.  Every  unearned  advantage  in  the  race  of  life  would 
have  to  be  neutralized,  every  undeserved  defect  compen- 
sated; and  so  great  w^ould  be  the  complication  that  it 
would  require  more  than  human  power  and  impartiality 
to  adjust  the  points  of  this  universal  handicap. 

But,  after  all,  does  not  Christianity  preach  equality.^ 
Undoubtedly ;  but  not  the  CoUectivist  equality.  One  God 
indeed  for  all,  one  redemption,  the  same  law,  the  same 
sacraments,  the  same  conditions  of  salvation,  the  same 
human  nature  alike  in  the  sad  weakness  from  original  sin 
and  in  the  glorious  possibilities  from  the  action  of  grace. 
Hence  master  and  slave,  philosopher  and  road-mender, 
Roman  and  barbarian,  white  man  and  colored,  were  all 
brothers  in  Christ,  all  knelt  at  the  same  altars.  The 


6 


Socialism 


essential  dignity  and  rights  of  man  and  of  woman  were 
affirmed  to  good  purpose  by  Christianity  eighteen  centu- 
ries before  they  were  affirmed  to  little  purpose  by  the 
French  Revolution.  But  Christianity  preached  no  level- 
ing of  ranks,  no  abolition  of  inequality  of  conditions; 
rather  it  taught  that  all  inequality  of  rights  and  authority 
is  from  God,  that  all  should  be  tempered  by  duty,  that  all 
obedience  should  have  responsibility  as  its  correlative  or 
counterpart,  that  we  should  acquiesce  in  the  diversity  of 
all  manner  of  gifts  as  providential,  and  no  more  rebel 
against  a  man  being  endowed  from  his  very  youth  with 
superior  power  or  superior  wealth  than  against  his  being 
endowed  with  a  delicate  ear  for  music,  or  with  keen  eye- 
sight, or  with  a  beautiful  voice,  or  with  muscular  strength 
and  agility,  or  with  powers  of  physical  endurance,  all  su- 
perior to  our  own. 

And  notice  as  a  particular  point  how  Christianity,  by 
the  great  emphasis  it  lays  on  family  life,  thereby  empha- 
sizes inequality;  for  the  family  is  the  main  ground  of  in- 
equality. To  support  wife  and  children  and  provide  for 
them  after  death  is  the  main  ground  of  industry  and  fru- 
gality. Hereditary  capacities  alike  and  hereditary  weak- 
ness are  handed  on  from  parent  to  child  no  less  than 
hereditary  property.  Hence,  although  Collectivism  may 
profess  to  do  no  injury  to  family  life,  it  is  in  essential 
contradiction  to  it  by  removing  its  main  ground,  the  de- 
voted union  of  man  and  woman  for  the  welfare  and  ad- 
vancement of  their  children. 

Let  me  add  one  more  remark  on  this  argument  from 
justice.  Not  merely  is  equality  impossible,  but  I  doubt 
whether  it  is  wanted.  Do  the  CoUectivists  understand  that 


Socialism 


7 


for  the  inhabitants  of  British  India,  namely,  three-quarters 
of  the  population  of  the  whole  British  Empire,  the  average 
yearly  income  per  head  is  £2,  according  to  an  official  and 
optimistic  account,  while  other  estimates  bring  it  to  less 
than  il  10s.  a  year,  or  a  penny  a  day.  This  being  so,  if 
there  are  any  Socialists  in  this  prosperous  city  of  Black- 
burn, are  they  prepared  to  throw  in  their  lot  with  their 
fellow-subjects  of  India,  and  share  and  share  alike,  and 
equalize  the  scantiness  of  the  one  income  with  the  relative 
abundance  of  the  other?  Or  will  the  Socialists  of  America 
treat  the  ten  million  negroes  in  the  States  each  as  a  man 
and  a  brother,  and  become  the  fellow-workmen  of  a  com- 
mon Collectivism?  Or  will  the  Australians  welcome  the 
Chinese  to  be  as  one  with  them  on  their  almost  vacant 
continent  ? 

So  much  foi  the  first  great  support  of  Collectivism,  the 
argument  from  justice.  The  second  argument  from  econ- 
omy equally  fails  on  examination.  I  well  recognize  indeed 
the  waste  under  our  present  system,  and  believe  half  of  it 
might  be  avoided.  I  fully  approve  of  collective  owner- 
ship and  collective  working  within  limits,  in  reason,  up  to 
a  certain  point,  the  exact  point  being  a  question  of  cir- 
cumstances. The  post,  the  telegraphs,  tfte  supply  of  water, 
gas  and  electricity,  and  tramways,  seem  to  me  in  most 
places  to  be  best  in  public,  not  private  hands;  and  for 
India  and  Ireland  the  railways,  waterways,  and  forests. 
In  each  case  the  limits  of  this  Collectivism  can  be  discuss- 
ed ;  but  in  all  cases  its  character  is  totally  different  from 
the  omnivorous  Collectivism  that  would  swallow  up  every 
kind  of  capital,  and  leave  the  private  man  nothing  at  all. 
And  observe  particularly  that  Collectivism  in  moderation 


8 


Socialism 


is  not  the  smallest  step  towards  the  Collectivism  of  the 
Socialists.  You  might  as  well  say  that  to  use  butter  as 
part  of  our  diet  is  a  step  towards  eating  nothing  else. 
Collective  ownership  as  an  ingredient  of  social  diet  is 
wholesome,  but  as  the  exclusive  diet  is  fatal. 

OBSTACLES  TO  COLLECTIVISM. 

Now,  briefly,  for  you  can  find  the  details  in  the  excellent 
joint  book  of  Fathers  Cathrein  and  Gettelmann,  there  are 
five  fatal  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  universal,  all- 
absorbing  Collectivism. 

First  is  the  difficulty  of  organization.  Either  all  the 
productive  property  of  Great  Britain  would  be  worked 
from  one  centre  as  one  business,  keeping  work  and  wages 
uniform ;  and  this  plan  would  break  down  instantly  by  the 
pure  overweight  of  clerk-work;  or  else  local  autonomy 
would  be  granted  to  parish,  urban  district,  county  or 
municipality;  and  then,  though  the  work  might  possibly 
be  within  manageable  proportions,  there  would  be  other 
difficulties.  For  gradually,  according  to  local  varieties  of 
opportunity,  talent  and  luck,  inequalities  of  health  would 
develop  among  the  tiifferent  localities,  Blackburn,  perhaps, 
be  earning  25  per  cent,  more  than  Preston;  and  back 
comes  the  inequality  that  was  supposed  to  have  been 
banished.  Nor  can  this  be  remedied  by  allowing  labor  to 
flow  to  where  it  was  best  paid.  For  to  work  the  Collec- 
tivist  plan  at  all,  there  must  be  some  fixity  in  the  numbers 
of  the  hands  to  work  and  the  mouths  to  feed.  To  provide 
employment  or  to  cater  for  ever-fluctuating  numbers 
would  be  impossible.    The  present  liberty  of  moving 


Socialism 


9 


about  would  in  consequence  have  to  be  restricted.  Even 
to  migrate  no  further  than  from  Manchester  to  Liverpool 
would  require  a  special  permit,  and  we  should  find  our- 
selves chained  to  the  soil  or  to  the  municipal  workshop. 
This  1  call  something  like  serfdom. 

Secondly  comes  the  difficulty  of  supply.  Instead  of  a 
body  of  traders  to  cater  for  the  public  taste  you  would 
have  as  your  providers  a  body  of  officials  eager  to  get 
through  their  work  and  not  be  bothered  by  individual 
peculiarities.  There  must  be  barrack-room  uniformity  if 
the  Collectivist  scheme  is  to  work,  no  genuine  liberty  of 
consumption,  not  for  the  men  only,  but  even  for  their 
mothers  and  sisters,  their  wives  and  daughters.  This  I 
call  something  like  despotism. 

Thirdly  comes  the  difficulty  of  employment.  Who  is 
to  do  what?  It  would  in  practice  be  impossible  to  allow 
freedom  to  choose  or  to  change  an  employment.  We 
should  have  to  take  what  was  given  to  us  and  stick  to  it. 
This  I  call  something  like  slavery.  Or  if  the  attempt  was 
made  to  be  fair  by  causing  all  men  to  take  turns  at  work- 
ing in  different  trades,  then  the  waste  of  human  power  by 
thus  undoing  the  division  of  labor  and  the  increase  of 
annoyance  and  discomfort  would  far  exceed  all  the  losses 
and  waste  of  the  present  competitive  system. 

Fourthly  comes  the  difficulty  of  wages.  Either  all  must 
receive  alike,  skilled  and  unskilled,  physician  and  farm 
laborer,  all  ranks  of  workers  in  the  iron,  the  cotton,  or  the 
building  trades,  to  the  utter  discouragement  of  skill  and 
intelligence;  or  else  there  must  be  discrimination,  some 
receiving  more,  others  less,  with  no  standard  to  go  by. 
A  municipality  now  can  pay  according  to  current  local 


10 


Socialism 


wages  or  trade  union  rates ;  but  under  Collectivism  there 
would  neither  be  trade  unions  or  any  outside  wages  with 
which  to  make  a  comparison.  And  thus  we  should  have 
to  do  the  very  thing  we  should  wish  to  avoid,  and  entrust 
our  good  fortune  to  the  arbitrary  decision  of  Government 
officials.    This  I  call  wages  at  Bumble's  discretion. 

Lastly  comes  the  difficulty  of  motives, and  a  blow  struck 
at  industry,  care  and  frugality.  True  that  Socialists  often 
argue  from  the  natural  goodness  of  man  and  his  prone- 
ness  to  virtue  from  his  youth  up.  But  this  appears  a 
contradiction.  If  man  is  naturally  so  good  and  yet  the 
world  so  full  of  injustice  and  oppression  as  the  Socialists 
maintain,  then  the  fact  that  they  have  allowed  the  world 
to  drift  into  so  bad  a  condition  proves  that  mankind,  how- 
ever honest  and  well-meaning,  is  thoroughly  incompetent, 
and  quite  unfit  to  be  trusted  with  collective  management. 
Let  us  then  confine  the  argument  to  real  historical  man, 
who  appears  an  idle,  careless,  and  self-indulgent  person- 
age unless  properly  trained  and  given  an  adequate  motive 
for  action.  Take  away  the  stimulus  of  hope  and  fear, 
especially  when  ennobled  and  fortified  by  regard  for 
others,  for  infirm  parents,  for  invalid  brethren,  for  wife 
and  young  children,  to  avert  from  them  suffering  and 
poverty,  to  procure  for  them  comfort,  health,  education 
and  ease — let  their  future  be  secure,  no  longer  in  any  way 
in  our  hands,  and  what  shall  save  those  hands  from  being 
smitten  with  a  paralyzing  slackness  ? 

So,  then,  these  five  difficulties  in  the  way  of  Socialism 
— the  difficulty  of  organizing  business,  of  supplying 
wants,  of  assigning  employment,  of  adjudicating  reward, 
and  of  furnishing  a  motive  for  industry  and  frugality — 


Socialism 


11 


these  five  fatal  difficulties  pull  down  the  second  prop  of 
Socialism,  the  argument  from  economy.  There  would  no 
doubt  be  some  saving  in  the  waste  of  competition,  but  the 
losses  would  outbalance  the  saving  more  than  a  hundred- 
fold.   This  I  call  being  penny  wise  and  pound  foolish. 

SOCIAL  REFORM,  NOT  SOCIALISM, 
THE  NECESSITY. 

But  there  still  remains  the  third  prop  of  Socialism,  the 
argument  from  necessity,  that  at  all  costs  we  must  be 
freed  from  the  evils  of  the  present  time,  that  anything  is 
better  than  to  leave  things  as  they  are.  And  most  truly 
the  evils  are  terrible  and  pressing:  the  miserable  dwellings 
of  so  large  a  number  of  our  people  in  town  and  country, 
the  cruel  advantage  taken  of  weak,  unorganized  labor,  the 
uncertainty  of  employment,  the  frequent  triumph  of  dis- 
honesty, the  poverty-stricken  old  age  that  for  so  many 
is  the  dreary  prospect  ahead.  But  who  recognized  these 
evils  more  clearly  than  Pope  Leo  XIII?  Who  told  us 
more  clearly  than  he  that  we  are  not  to  leave  these  things 
as  they  are?  What  a  fallacy  then  for  the  Socialists  to  say, 
Society  is  sick,  and  therefore  the  only  remedy  is  Collec- 
tivism, as  though  there  was  no  other  alternative.  But 
another  alternative  there  is  that  involves  no  injury  to  the 
Church,  no  injury  to  the  State,  no  injury  to  family  life, 
another  alternative  that,  unlike  Collectivism,  is  free  from 
the  five  fatal  obstacles  I  have  shown  in  the  way  of  Col- 
lectivism; and  this  other  alternative  is  Christian  Social 
Reform. 


12 


Socialism 


AN  ALTERNATIVE. 
1  have  already  menticned  Bishop  Stang's  volume  on 
Socialism  and  Christianity,  and  will  gladly  follow  his 
example  of  not  meeting  the  new  social  gospel  with  mere 
negation,  but  with  a  positive  programme  of  reform.  I 
ask,  therefore,  and  with  the  more  confidence  because  I 
have  an  episcopal  flag  flying  at  my  mast-head,  whether  in 
Great  Britain  we  cannot  unite  our  forces  and  follow  social 
reform  along  the  four  lines  of  protected  labor,  of  organ- 
ized labor,  of  insured  labor,  and  lastly  of  diffused  owner- 
ship. This  is  not  indeed  all,  but  all  that  we  need  now 
consider. 

LABOR  REFORMS. 

As  to  protected  labor  or  factory  legislation,  we  have 
only  to  go  on  with  what  has  been  so  well  begun,  and  ex- 
tend, improve,  complete  and  copy  any  salutary  examples 
from  abroad.  Thus  the  laws  might  be  imitated  that 
demand  guarantees  for  the  moral  character  of  foremen, 
separation  of  the  sexes,  consent  of  parents  or  guardians 
before  those  under  age  may  be  employed.'  Then  the  ac- 
tual law  might  be  better  enforced,  and  evasions  stopped 
like  those  in  the  dressmaking  trade,  brought  to  public 
knowledge  in  Mrs.  Lyttelton's  play.  And  legal  protection 
should  be  extended  to  the  helpless  crowd  of  workers, 
mostly  young  women,  in  the  match  factories,  jam-making, 
and  cheap  clothing  trade. 

Secondly,  along  the  line  of  organized  labor,  let  us  aim 
at  the  spread,  the  elevation,  and  the  legal  incorporation  of 
trade  unions,  so  that  as  far  as  possible  in  all  industries 
all  bargaining  about  work  and  wages  may  be  collective 
bargaining,  masters  and  men  both  organized,  all  disputes 


Socialism 


13 


that  conciliation  cannot  avert  being  conducted  before  a 
reasonable  tribunal  of  arbitration;  and  an  end  made  of 
the  present  scandalous  uncertainty  of  the  law  regarding 
trade  unions. 

And  here  let  me  interpose  a  word  suggested  by  what 
has  already  passed  at  this  Conference.  His  Grace  the 
Archbishop  of  Westminster  alluded  to  a  rumor  that  labor 
organizations  were  being  abused  to  force  their  members 
to  support  non-religious  education.  If  there  is  any  truth 
—I  hope  there  is  not — in  such  a  rumor,  far  from  setting 
Catholics  against  trade  unions,  it  should  stimulate  them 
to  take  such  a  friendly  and  sympathetic  attitude  towards 
them  in  the  legitimate  industrial  sphere,  as  to  be  able  to 
protest  with  good  effect  if  they  go  beyond  that  sphere. 
And  here  precisely  is  a  case  to  which  the  words  of  Father 
Gerard  apply,  delivered  in  this  hall  last  night,  on  the 
responsibihty  of  Catholic  men;  a  case  where  the  resolute 
protest  of  all  Catholic  trade-unionists  against  the  organi- 
zation of  labor  being  thus  turned  from  its  proper  purpose 
would  have,  on  all  concerned,  the  most  beneficial  effect. 

Thirdly,  along  the  line  of  insured  labor  we  have  an  in- 
stalment in  the  Workman's  Compensation  Act  of  1897. 
But  this  only  touches  accidents  and  not  the  other  great 
branches  of  workmen's  insurance,  against  sickness,  against 
infirmity,  and  against  unemployment.  Our  trade  unions 
and  our  friendly  societies,  for  a  select  portion  of  our 
people,  serve  as  insurance  against  sickness  and  infirmity ; 
but  I  confess  to  a  feeling  of  envy  at  the  magnificent  sys- 
tem of  triple  insurance  that  is  the  boast  of  Germany.  But 
neither  in  Germany  nor  elsewhere  is  the  final  branch  of 
insurance,  viz.,  that  against  unemployment,  yet  estab- 


14 


Socialism 


lished,  though  attempts  have  been  made,  the  most  con- 
spicuous and  practical  for  us  being  the  great  work  of  our 
English  trade  unions,  who  have  spent  on  unemployed  ben- 
efit in  the  twelve  years  ending  1903  considerably  over 
four  million  pounds.  And  I  agree  with  the  suggestion  in 
Mr.  Percy  Alden's  recent  admirable  work  (The  Unem- 
ployed, pp.  64,65),  that  a  Government  contribution  should 
be  given  in  proportion  to  the  sums  thus  voluntarily  sub- 
scribed. 

DIFFUSED  OWNERSHIP. 

Lastly,  we  come  to  the  fourth  line  of  true  social  reform, 
namely,  diffused  ownership,  on  which  Leo  XIIL  laid  such 
stress:  that  the  majority  of  the  pople  should  not  live 
merely  from  hand  to  mouth,  but  should  have,  each  family 
its  small  capital,  some  partnership,  shares,  or  stocks,  but 
principally  a  small  plot  of  mother  earth,  from  the  size  of 
a  garden  to  the  size  of  a  small  farm,  that  no  creditor 
could  touch,  that  belonged  to  the  family  rather  than  the 
individual,  that  would  be  greatly  eased  of  local  and  Im- 
perial taxation  and  of  legal  charges  (it  is  done  in  Bel- 
gium), that  would  serve  as  insurance  against  unemploy- 
ment, that  would  solve  (and  alone  solve)  the  problem  of 
the  exodus  from  country  villages,  and  would  allay  the 
complaint  of  physical  degeneration.  And  if  I  envy  the 
Germans  their  insurance  laws,  I  envy  still  more  their 
millions  of  peasant  proprietors,  who,  far  from  dwindling 
away,  as  the  Socialists  and  some  economists  had  prophe- 
sied, not  only  weathered  the  storm  of  low  prices  and 
agricultural  depression,  but  have  increased  in  recent  years 
both  absolutely  and  in  the  proportion  of  the  cultivated 


Socialism 


15 


land  which  they  hold.  True,  in  this  country  we  have 
special  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  endowment,  or  rather 
the  re-endowment,  of  half  our  population  with  property; 
but  with  the  will  there  is  the  way:  the  extension  of  allot- 
ments, the  movement  towards  rural  factories  and  garden 
cities,  are  movements  in  the  right  direction;  and  we  are 
gradually  shaking  ofif  the  baleful  superstition  that  the 
money  lender,  the  company  promoter,  the  credit  draper, 
the  army  contractor,  the  drink  seller,  the  slum  owner,  and 
others,  have  a  sacred  right  to  make  what  contracts  they 
please,  to  pocket  what  profit  they  can,  and  devour  the 
hard-earned  savings  of  genuine  labor. 

But  I  have  said  enough  for  our  purpose,  that  social 
reform  along  the  lines  of  protected  labor,  organized  labor, 
insured  labor,  and  diffused  ownership,  sweeps  away  the 
only  remaining  defence  and  lavSt  prop  of  Socialism,  its 
alleged  necessity. 

A  FINAL  WARNING. 

Yet  one  word  of  caution  in  conclusion.  I  have  spoken 
with  great  approval  of  many  social  reforms.  But  there  is 
a  corrosive  poison  that  eats  away  the  value  of  them  all. 
This  poison  is  irreligion,  whether  instilled  by  godless 
schools,  or  godless  homes,  or  godless  professors.  Thus 
the  very  Germany  that  among  the  great  countries  of  the 
world  leads  the  vanguard  of  social  reform,  is  herself 
afflicted  with  the  gravest  social  discontent ;  and  America, 
with  all  her  wonderful  resources,  is  beginning  at  last  to 
recognize,  let  us  hope  before  it  is  too  late,  that  for  modern 
nations  even  temporal  welfare  is  bound  up  inseparably 
with  Christian  schools  and  Christian  homes. 


RE-PRINTED  BY  PERMISSION  OF 
THE  CATHOLIC  TRUTH  SOCIETY. 


